The Great Gatsby (2013) - 3.5 Stars (out of four)
The Great Gatsby (1974) - 3 Stars (out of four)
While this review is going to be primarily about Baz Luhrmann's 2013 adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's seminal book, it is almost impossible to have this discussion without addressing the other great 1974 version starring Robert Redford and Mia Farrow. I will not be discussing the 1926 or1949 versions, nor the 2000 TV movie starring Mira Sorvino and Paul Rudd. First, if you don't know the story, get a book and read it. It's literally the great American novel. You are doing yourself a disservice by not reading it. The adaptations are almost identical with a few changes here and there, so my ratings have more to do with the execution of the films. Also, surprisingly, both adaptations are quite faithful to the source material, with few changes.
First, I really believe that you will like whatever version you saw first, better. Gatsby is one of those indelible tales that really grabs hold of you and Redford and Dicaprio both play superior versions of The titular character. They are both gifted actors, and they both bring great range to the character. While Redford plays Gatsby a tad understated, I must admit I preferred Dicaprio's turn. It was larger than life, but that goes with the movie's tone, which I'll get into in a moment. I also preferred Mulligan, because her tone made Daisy crueler and more detached, more mercenary in her treatment of gatsby. Farrow's portrayal is a lot more sympathetic, mostly because they introduce Daisy's young daughter much sooner, making her ultimate betrayal of Gatsby much more understandable and palatable. But both sets of actors were great together. I bought that they were in love. There is real chemistry in both duos.
Now, I read a review on IMDB that says Leo Dicaprio was the better Gatsby. The reviewer said Redford was too old for the part and played Gatsby too detached. The funny thing is, if the reviewer would have checked the birthdates of all four actors, he/she would have realized Dicaprio (1974) and Redford (1936) were exactly the same age when they shot the film, 37. Mulligan (1985) and Farrow (1945) were likewise close in age, around 27-28 when they filmed it. So the stars are pretty much the same age. This brings up an interesting dynamic or taste. Maybe it is society, but we are trending younger and younger, worshipping at the altar of youth. This is not a new phenomenon. The Roaring Twenties, when Gatsby takes place, put a premium on youth, for being in your early twenties and being rich. It was a good time to be alive if you were both, a very vibrant time. This is reflected in all the Pre-Code films made at the time, the attitude was prevalent. But I think today, we are trending even younger, coveting our late teens to early twenties. This is reflected in both films. Both sets of star were roughly the same age, yet look at the pics below. Very telling. And the dichotomy was even more prevalent in the 30s and 40s. When Lauren Bacall did The Big Sleep with Humphrey Bogart, she was 17. Jean Harlowe died at 27. Most of the main actresses of the day stated in their late teens or early 20s and they looked 10 years older. Just an interesting observation of what we value as beautiful through the years,and that that standard changes radically.
Anyway, the most important aspect of both movies, and this is what separated the half star for me, was each movie's tone, the general "feel", the atmosphere of each picture. Redford's version is shot realistically, almost like a documentary of the times, using appropriate costumes and music from the era. It is a fairly straightforward telling of two star-crossed lovers. This is indicative of 70's film convention. Very matter-of-fact, realistic depiction of people and events. The Luhrmann version, however, is very typical of him, over-the-top and sumptuous, hyper-stylized and not "real" for the most part. This is a fitting successor to his other famous films: Strictly Ballroom, William Shakespeare's Romeo+Juliet, and Moulin Rouge. It is also much starker, bleaker and cynical in its outlook. Again, this fits neatly into our times and our collective perspective.
The reason I preferred the 2013 version is the direction. All the characters in Gatsby, outside of Nick Carraway, our detached narrator, are wearing masks and concealing something. This is the root of the story, and how people react when those masks are pulled aside. In the new version, when Luhrmann wanted to portray the depravity of the era, the superficiality of the characters, they over-emote, over-gesticulate, over-enunciate, even overdress. It is also filmed very stylistically, with gaudy and eye-popping colors, a mixture of modern and period-appropriate music, mixtures of slowed-down, sped up, or halting action. Normal people just don't walk, talk or act like this. We are seeing artifice, as if we are peering into a dream where the world is not quite right. Then, when Daisy and Gatsby have moments of real tenderness and humanity, where they discover their love for each other again, the movie gradually becomes more realistic in its tone. We are seeing two people in love, desperately reaching for each other, yet tragically falling apart. The shift in tone was subtle, but absolutely appropriate undeniable, and made the coming tragedy so much more heartbreaking in the cruel denouement. I was truly moved when I realized that, despite his bootlegging past, Gatsby and Carraway were both innocents, and they were both chewed up and spit out by that world and the demons that inhabit it. It was a revelation for me, the reason why I ultimately love movies. That is, to be moved, to be touched in a profound way. This new Gatsby did it for me, and I highly recommend it to anyone.
A quick note on the 3D. I saw it in 2D, but this is a movie that I am willing to bet looks great in 3D. Luhrmann's stylization will lend itself well to that format, so don't worry about ponying up the extra few bucks. It will be worth it.
